Logitechcomputers.com

The timeline behind logitechcomputers.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Logitech International S.A. v. Md Shakhawat / Logitech Computers Claim Number: FA2601002200280 PARTIES Complainant is Logitech International S.A. ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher Dolan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Md Shakhawat / Logitech Computers ("Respondent"), Bangladesh. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <logitechcomputers.com> ("Disputed Domain Name"), registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 17, 2026; Forum received payment on January 17, 2026. On January 20, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <logitechcomputers.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On January 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2026, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@logitechcomputers.com. Also on January 21, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider, as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Logitech International S.A. ("Logitech" or "Complainant"), is a leading worldwide provider of personal peripherals and computer and mobile accessories for PC navigation, video communication and collaboration, music and smart home. Since at least as early as 1982, Complainant has used its LOGITECH mark ("Mark") in connection with the sale and promotion of Complainant's goods. As a result of Complainant's extensive investment in its LOGITECH Mark and sales of its goods and services under the Mark as well as widespread publicity and recognition of Complainant and its goods and services, Complainant owns well-established common law trademark rights in the LOGITECH Mark, embodying invaluable goodwill, as well as registered trademark rights in the Mark. The Disputed Domain resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") that demonstrates Respondent's intention, for commercial gain, to impersonate Complainant's official LOGITECH Website, or at a minimum a website affiliated with or authorized by Complainant, where no authorization or affiliation exists. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant owns trademark rights in the LOGITECH Mark, including U.S. trademark registration number 1,969,025, registered on April 23, 1996. 2. As a result of Complainant's extensive investment in its LOGITECH Mark and sales of its goods and services under the Mark as well as widespread publicity and recognition of Complainant and its goods and services, Complainant owns extremely strong common law trademark rights in the LOGITECH Mark, embodying invaluable goodwill. 3. Complainant registered the domain <logitech.com> for use operating Logitech's official website (the "LOGITECH Website") on May 7, 1990. 4. The Respondent used a proxy or privacy registration service to conceal Respondent's identity when registering the Dispute Domain Name. The Registrar has subsequently verified the name of the Respondent as "Md Shakhawat / Logitech Computers". Both the use of a privacy registration service and providing false contact information are recognized as indicators of a domain name registrant's bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, par. 3.6. 5. Respondent's Website offers all manner of technology products that compete with Complainant's goods, including LOGITECH products, under the banner "Logitech Computers" and the business address "SHOP# 309,310, BCS COMPUTER CITY, IDB BHABAN DHAKA, BANGLADESH". 6. Respondent's Website reflects Respondent's intention to impersonate Complainant's official LOGITECH Website, or falsely impute that Respondent's Website is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. 7. The Panel finds that Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's LOGITECH Mark and other intellectual property to attract Internet consumers to Respondent's Website for Respondent's own financial gain is compelling evidence of Respondent's bad faith use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Disputed Domain Name incorporates Complainant's LOGITECH Mark in its entirety, the only difference being the addition of the generic term "computers" and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".com." These differences between Complainant's Mark and the Disputed Domain Name do nothing to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's Mark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX trademark and adds "the letters 'btc' and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's mark."); Radio Flyer Inc. v. yang zhi chao, FA 2043233 (Forum June 5, 2024) (holding the <radioflyler.com> domain, which includes a misspelling of complainant's RADIO FLYER mark to be confusingly similar to the RADIO FLYER mark). Accordingly, the Panel has no difficulty in finding that the first element of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that constitutes a deliberate attempt to impersonate Complainant's official LOGITECH Website or at a minimum a website affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. Respondent's intent to impersonate Complainant and Complainant's website is evidenced by the fact that Respondent's Website does at least the following, with no permission from Complainant: A. Prominently displays the LOGITECH Mark; B. Purports to offer LOGITECH-branded goods for sale; C. Displays Complainant's copyrighted photos of Complainant's LOGITECH- branded goods; and D. Uses the Disputed Domain Name to create the impression Respondent's Website is Complainant's official LOGITECH Website. Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's LOGITECH Mark in the Disputed Domain Name and on Respondent's Website in an attempt to create the false impression that Respondent's Website is one of Complainant's official websites, or is a website authorized by or associated with Complainant, is likely to cause Internet users searching for Complainant's official LOGITECH-branded websites, including the LOGITECH Website, to mistakenly believe that Respondent's Website is affiliated with or hosted, sponsored, or authorized by Complainant, when that is not the case. Respondent's Website is intentionally designed to deceive Internet users as to the source of the Website and/or the LOGITECH branded products purportedly offered for sale through the Website. Thus, Respondent was not using the Disputed Domain in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial fair use. Logitech International S.A. v. iqbal iqbal walker, FA 1867574 (Forum November 13, 2019) (finding website offering downloadable drivers and firmware for products related to Complainant that also displays Complainant's trademark and unauthorized images of its products is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); Logitech International S.A. v. Alexander Walker, FA 1860966 (Forum Sept. 13, 2019) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent uses the domain name to create a false impression that it and its resolving website are affiliated with or hosted by Complainant). Respondent's Website offers all manner of technology products that compete with Complainant's goods, including LOGITECH products, under the banner "Logitech Computers" and the business address "SHOP# 309,310, BCS COMPUTER CITY, IDB BHABAN DHAKA, BANGLADESH". The Panel considers that using an infringing disputed domain name and website to compete with a trademark owner is not a bona fide or good faith use. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith By using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's famous LOGITECH Mark, it is clear Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of deceiving consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's Website and thereby disrupting Complainant's business. This constitutes bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. See Logitech International S.A. v. Alexander Walker, FA 1860966 (Forum Sept. 13, 2019) (Finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the contested <logitechdownload.com> domain name to offer the same goods and services as Complainant disrupts Complainant's business); see also EthnicGrocer.com v. Latin Grocer.com; FA 0094384 (Forum, July 7, 2000) (registration of slight variation of Complainant's mark suggests Respondent registered names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business). Additionally, considering the presentation of Respondent's Website, including Respondent's unauthorized use of the LOGITECH Mark, the display of photos of Complainant's LOGITECH-branded products on the Website, and purported offering of LOGITECH branded goods for sale, it is clear Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its prior rights in the Mark before registering and using the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's LOGITECH Mark and other intellectual property to attract Internet consumers to Respondent's Website for Respondent's own financial gain demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. See Wahl Clipper Corporation v. rayan cash / gewcorps.com, FA 1898556 (Forum June 26, 2020) (finding bad faith where the disputed domain resolved to parked page displaying sponsored hyperlinks labeled with terms related to Complainant's Wahl Products); Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Qian Jihai, FA 1882533 (Forum May 7, 2020) (finding respondent's use of disputed domain to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain); Deere & Company v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1830480 (Forum March 25, 2019) ("Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant's mark for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"). For the reasons thoroughly discussed above, the Panel finds that the third element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii) is satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <logitechcomputers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: February 12, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.